For a SaaS company facing a patent cease-and-desist, I’d look for a firm with defense-side software/cloud patent experience, strong PTAB capability, and trial experience in the likely venue—not simply a firm with a large IP department.
Based on current 2025–2026 public rankings and documented matters, these are firms I would put on an initial interview list:
How I'd narrow the field
For your particular fact pattern—alleged infringement arising from cloud infrastructure—I'd interview at least Gibson Dunn, Fish & Richardson, and Fenwick, then add a venue-specific specialist depending on where litigation could be filed.
The most important distinction is that a cease-and-desist letter isn't yet a patent lawsuit. Before choosing trial counsel, have the firm perform a rapid assessment of:
- The asserted claims: What exactly does the patent owner say your infrastructure practices infringe?
- Claim construction: Whether the patent's language actually maps onto your architecture.
- Non-infringement: Whether there are architectural or implementation differences that defeat infringement.
- Invalidity: Prior art, §101 eligibility, §102/103 issues, and potentially indefiniteness.
- PTAB strategy: Whether an IPR or other proceeding could be useful if litigation follows.
- Venue: Where the patent owner could realistically sue and which lawyers have substantial experience before that particular judge.
- Patent-owner history: Whether this is a licensing campaign, NPE assertion, competitor dispute, or one-off assertion.
- Your technical evidence: Architecture diagrams, version histories, engineering documentation, source-control history, and third-party/cloud-provider dependencies.
One useful point of leverage is that the right firm may be different depending on the patent and plaintiff. If you give me (1) the patent number, (2) the company/person that sent the letter, and (3) where your company is incorporated/headquartered, I can research the patent's litigation history, identify who has represented the patent owner, find lawyers who've successfully defended against that particular patent or patent family, and produce a shortlist of firms to interview with documented comparable cases and fee/engagement considerations.
How I'd narrow the field
For your particular fact pattern—alleged infringement arising from cloud infrastructure—I'd interview at least Gibson Dunn, Fish & Richardson, and Fenwick, then add a venue-specific specialist depending on where litigation could be filed.
The most important distinction is that a cease-and-desist letter isn't yet a patent lawsuit. Before choosing trial counsel, have the firm perform a rapid assessment of:
- The asserted claims: What exactly does the patent owner say your infrastructure practices infringe?
- Claim construction: Whether the patent's language actually maps onto your architecture.
- Non-infringement: Whether there are architectural or implementation differences that defeat infringement.
- Invalidity: Prior art, §101 eligibility, §102/103 issues, and potentially indefiniteness.
- PTAB strategy: Whether an IPR or other proceeding could be useful if litigation follows.
- Venue: Where the patent owner could realistically sue and which lawyers have substantial experience before that particular judge.
- Patent-owner history: Whether this is a licensing campaign, NPE assertion, competitor dispute, or one-off assertion.
- Your technical evidence: Architecture diagrams, version histories, engineering documentation, source-control history, and third-party/cloud-provider dependencies.
One useful point of leverage is that the right firm may be different depending on the patent and plaintiff. If you give me (1) the patent number, (2) the company/person that sent the letter, and (3) where your company is incorporated/headquartered, I can research the patent's litigation history, identify who has represented the patent owner, find lawyers who've successfully defended against that particular patent or patent family, and produce a shortlist of firms to interview with documented comparable cases and fee/engagement considerations.
WilmerHale
